the present time the price of wool has dropped to from fifteen to twenty cents a pound.

In view of this fact the trade commissioner for the Union of South Africa submitted a proposed amendment to the tariff on raw wool to the American Consul General, Robert P. Skinner, who transmitted the proposal to the Department of State, on March 2, 1921. The Union was convinced that a re-imposition of the 1909 duties on South African wool would be detrimental to South African interests and urged the United States Congress to consider its plea. And again on April 1, 1921, the American Consulate at Cape Town informed the Department of State that the local chamber of commerce was deeply concerned over the situation. It considered that their woolen industry would be greatly injured by the levying of duties according to the weight of the wool, and urged a lowering of the duty.

SWISS MANUFACTURERS SUGGEST RETALIATION IF THE Watch INDUSTRY BE AFFECTED

Thornwall Haynes, American Consul at Berne, on March 15, 1921, informed the Department of State that the Swiss manufacturers of watches were remarking that "if the United States revises the tariff upward on Swiss exports of watches, crystals, jewels, and springs, to the United States," this would be followed by a retaliation of the Swiss in the form of an export duty on jewels and springs to the United States, which would be prohibitive to the United States manufacturers.

DIFFICULTIES SURROUNDING TARIFF REVISION

During the debates on the Emergency Tariff Bill, the fact that trade with the Argentine Republic was in danger was demonstrated by the Argentine Republic itself. The abandonment of the American national exposition, which was to have taken place at Buenos Aires on March 5, 1921, was the first intimation received here that the manufacturers of Argentina were bitterly incensed over the threatened blow to their commerce with the United States.10

The "Confederacion Argentina del Comercio de la Industria y de la Produccion" drew up a statement to be presented to its 10 See Economic World, April 23, 1921, p. 593; Page, T. W.

national government, in which it recited its grievances against the proposed Emergency Tariff, which seemed to the Confederation to be aimed at Argentina's export trade of wheat, flour, oats, corn, meats, butter, wool, etc. In conclusion, the address solicited the national government to adopt a procedure whereby the United States Government might be prevented from carrying this tariff into effect.11

In consequence, Ambassador Le Breton of the Argentine Republic at Washington was instructed by his government to make representations to the United States Government regarding the tariff then being written in respect to meats and hides. The proposed duties on imported meats would make it practically prohibitive for the Argentine meat exporters to compete with the American market."

FRANCE COMPLAINS OF THE PROPOSED DUTY ON RABBIT SKINS AND THE AMERICAN VALUATION FEATURE OF THE TARIFF

The French and Belgian Syndicates of Furriers and Rabbit Hair Cutters petitioned the American Ambassador in Paris, on March 25, 1921, with the purpose of obtaining better rates for their exports into the United States than was provided for by the tariff bill before Congress. They complained against the proposed American duty on dyed rabbit skins.

A resentment also was shown in a communication of the FrancoAmerican Board of Commerce and Industry to the United States Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. It was to the effect that Section 404 of the Emergency Tariff enabled the inspection of French books by government officers, and French manufacturing processes could thus be divulged to the United States. The American valuation feature proposed for the permanent Fordney Bill was another cause for dissatisfaction, and retaliatory measures by France were suggested. In support of this attitude, fifteen chambers of commerce of French manufacturing cities protested against these tariff provisions. The National Office of the Foreign Commerce Department of the French Government notified the Franco-American Chamber of Commerce that these two measures would have a 11 See Pan-American Magazine, March, 1921, pp. 179–181. 12 See The Washington Post, April 2, 1922.

great influence in disturbing the amicable commercial relations of France and the United States, and expressed great concern as to the outcome of such protective tendencies.13

DENMARK DEPLORES PROPOSED DUTY ON BUTTER AND OTHER AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

The Royal Danish Legation at Washington, D. C., on April 5, 1921, through its Minister, C. Brun, communicated with the Department of State under instructions from the Danish Minister of Foreign Affairs, regarding the operation of the pending tariff legislation, with its tendency to increase the import duty on agricultural products. Denmark evidently viewed the prospect with great anxiety. The importation of butter was the chief concern of that country, although it could export only about 13,000 tons per year, and the consumption in the United States was about 885,000 tons per year. In regard to potatoes, the export to the United States amounted to only one fourth per cent of the total amount produced in the United States. Indian corn and oil cakes seem to be the principal importation to Denmark from the United States, but in the opinion of that government this import would be diminished if Denmark were prevented from selling its products to the United States, as with the proposed duty Denmark could not export to this country, and therefore could not buy our products.

PRESIDENT HARDING AND LEGISLATORS FAVOR EMERGENCY TARIFF TO CONTINUE AMERICAN STANDARDS OF LIVING

In these words,

One who values American prosperity and maintained American standards of wage and living can have no sympathy with the proposal that easy duty and the flood of imports will cheapen our costs of living."

" 14

President Warren G. Harding addressed the members of Congress in extraordinary session on April 12, 1921, in favor of the pending Emergency Tariff Bill.

In complete sympathy with Warren G. Harding, the Hon.

13 See Journal of Commerce, December 23, 1921, p. 2.

14 Congressional Record, 67th Cong., Vol. LXI, p. 170.

Allen T. Treadway of Massachusetts, on April 14, in the House of Representatives, reiterated the President's views regarding the necessity for protecting and maintaining the American standards of wage and living, and reaffirmed his belief in the protective Emergency Tariff then under consideration.15

Owing to his belief in a protective tariff especially in the present emergency, and because he had "always believed in reasonable protection to keep up our industries and our American standard of living," the Honorable Ladislas Lazaro of Louisiana addressed the House of Representatives on April 14, 1921, in favor of the Emergency Tariff.

CONFERENCE OF FOREIGN DIPLOMATISTS. PENDING TARIFF MEASURES DISCUSSED

A conference of the foreign diplomatists representing their countries at Washington, D. C., was held in New York City, May 16-18, 1921, during the sessions of, and in conjunction with, the National Association of Manufacturers. The effect of the pending Emergency Tariff bill and the permanent FordneyMcCumber Tariff measure on the trade of each of their respective countries with the United States was discussed.

Ambassador Jusserand of France, as honorary chairman of the conference, led off the discussion with remarks that tended to show that a high American tariff at this time would close the market to French goods. If France were thus prevented from selling here in the United States, then it could not pay for the farming implements and machinery which were necessary for the production of its crops.16

This same view was expressed by the Ambassador from Italy, Senator Vittorio Ricci, who added that Italy was hindered from buying its necessary goods owing to the American high tariff as well as to that of other countries.17

In a more general way, the Minister from Sweden, Captain Axel Wallenberg, seemed to consider that tariffs or restrictive

15 Congressional Record, 67th Cong., Vol. LXI, p. 275.

16 See Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Convention of the National Association of Manufacturers of the United States of America, 1921, p. 155.

17 Ibid., p. 193.